On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:14:25PM BST, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:55:16AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Jul 2021 17:08:05 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > 
> > > Require the -I option to add ignored files to version control
> > > even when 'got add' is not recursing into directories with -R.
> > >
> > > Inspired by robert@ accidentally committing a ./iridium.core file to the
> > > CVS ports tree in spite of "*.core" being on cvs's default ignore list.
> > 
> > This sounds safer for "got add *" but what happens if you do "got
> > add foo.core"?  Is there an error message or will it silently add
> > nothing?
> 
> It will print nothing and add nothing.
> 
> Raising an error is a bad idea since the ignored file would usually be
> picked up by some wildcard expression and we still want that case to
> succeed ('cvs add *' is likely what robert actually did).
> 
> One option is to list ignored files as such, using a new status code.
> I've already played with this. An earlier version of my patch printed this:
> 
>  $ got add foo.core
>  I foo.core
>  $
> 
> This tells the user why foo.core wasn't added, which on the surface
> seems much better than the behaviour implemented by my current patch,
> which looks like this:
> 
>  $ got add foo.core
>  $
> 
> But unless we special-case things the recursive case would then also
> report ignored files. Which would look like this:
> 
>  $ got add -R .
>  A README
>  I foo.core
>  I obj/bar.o
>  I obj/foo.o
>  A src/foo.c
>  A src/bar.c
>  I src/bar.c.orig
>  $
> 
> Whereas the current output just would be:
> 
>  $ got add -R .
>  A README
>  A src/foo.c
>  A src/bar.c
>  $
> 
> So this new output for -R would potentially display many more ignored files
> than added files which might not be desirable. We could perhaps collapse
> ignored directories to make this less of an issue:
> 
>  $ got add -R .
>  A README
>  I foo.core
>  I obj/
>  A src/foo.c
>  A src/bar.c
>  I src/bar.c.orig
>  $
> 
> Implementing the above idea would require further internal changes:
> The ignores feature currently works by not even calling the status walk
> callback on ignored files. The introduction of a new status code 'I' would
> require updating all existing consumers of the status crawl (add, delete,
> status, and more) to filter out such files.
> This is certainly something we could do if we want 'add -R' to display
> every file/directory which was ignored. I would not be opposed to this.
> I decided against including such changes in the patch under discussion
> because the changes bloat up the patch and might as well be done later.
> 

Given that even "*.core" files find their way to OpenBSD repositories[0],
a warning or error message at some point is in order, IMHO.

[0] https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/ports/tests/portcheck/t5/some.core

Regards,

Raf